Search for: All records

Vaccines are an important tool in the rapidly evolving repertoire of immunotherapies in oncology. Although cancer vaccines have been investigated for over 30 years, very few have achieved meaningful clinical success. However, recent advances in areas such antigen identification, formulation development and manufacturing, combination therapy regimens, and indication and patient selection hold promise to reinvigorate the field. Here, we provide a timely update on the clinical status of cancer vaccines. We identify and critically analyze 360 active trials of cancer vaccines according to delivery vehicle, antigen type, indication, and other metrics, as well as highlight eight globally approved products. Finally, we discuss current limitations and future applications for clinical translation of cancer vaccines.

Adoptive cell therapies are dramatically altering the treatment landscape of cancer. However, treatment of solid tumors remains a major unmet need, in part due to limited adoptive cell infiltration into the tumor and in part due to the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. The heterogeneity of tumors and presence of nonresponders also call for development of antigen‐independent therapeutic approaches. Myeloid cells offer such an opportunity, given their large presence in the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, such as in triple negative breast cancer. However, their therapeutic utility is hindered by their phenotypic plasticity. Here, the impressive trafficking ability of adoptively transferred monocytes is leveraged into the immunosuppressive 4T1 tumor to develop an antitumor therapy. To control monocyte differentiation in the tumor microenvironment, surface‐adherent “backpacks” stably modified with interferon gamma (IFNγ) are developed to stimulate macrophage plasticity into a pro‐inflammatory, antitumor phenotype, a strategy as referred to as Ornate Polymer backpacks on Tissue Infiltrating Monocytes (OPTIMs). Treatment with OPTIMs substantially reduces tumor burden in a mouse 4T1 model and significantly increases survival. Cytokine and immune cell profiling reveal that OPTIMs remodeled the tumor microenvironment into a pro‐inflammatory state.

Cell therapies are emerging as a promising new therapeutic modality in medicine, generating effective treatments for previously incurable diseases. Clinical success of cell therapies has energized the field of cellular engineering, spurring further exploration of novel approaches to improve their therapeutic performance. Engineering of cell surfaces using natural and synthetic materials has emerged as a valuable tool in this endeavor. This review summarizes recent advances in the development of technologies for decorating cell surfaces with various materials including nanoparticles, microparticles, and polymeric coatings, focusing on the ways in which surface decorations enhance carrier cells and therapeutic effects. Key benefits of surface‐modified cells include protecting the carrier cell, reducing particle clearance, enhancing cell trafficking, masking cell‐surface antigens, modulating inflammatory phenotype of carrier cells, and delivering therapeutic agents to target tissues. While most of these technologies are still in the proof‐of‐concept stage, the promising therapeutic efficacy of these constructs from in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies has laid a strong foundation for eventual clinical translation. Cell surface engineering with materials can imbue a diverse range of advantages for cell therapy, creating opportunities for innovative functionalities, for improved therapeutic efficacy, and transforming the fundamental and translational landscape of cell therapies.

Delivery of multiple therapeutics has become a preferred method of treating cancer, albeit differences in the biodistribution and pharmacokinetic profiles of individual drugs pose challenges in effectively delivering synergistic drug combinations to and at the tumor site. Here, bicompartmental Janus nanoparticles comprised of domains are reported with distinct bulk properties that allow for independent drug loading and release. Programmable drug release can be triggered by a change in the pH value and depends upon the bulk properties of the polymers used in the respective compartments, rather than the molecular structures of the active agents. Bicompartmental nanoparticles delivering a synergistic combination of lapatinib and paclitaxel result in increased activity against HER2+ breast cancer cells. Surprisingly, the dual drug loaded particles also show significant efficacy toward triple negative breast cancer, even though this cancer model is unresponsive to lapatinib alone. The broad versatility of the nanoparticle platform allows for rapid exploration of a wide range of drug combinations where both their relative drug ratios and temporal release profiles can be optimized.

Treatment of brain‐related diseases is challenging due to the presence of the blood–brain barrier (BBB), a hurdle that prevents most foreign matter from entering the brain. While macromolecules and nanoparticles represent an increasing fraction of the therapeutic landscape in general, their limited ability to cross the BBB has hindered their clinical impact in treating diseases of the central nervous system. Here, the various routes for entry of macromolecular therapeutics into the brain are discussed, as well as the methods used to enhance their transport. Particular emphasis is placed on highlighting quantitative trends and mechanistic insights into how the macromolecular transport can be improved, discussing novel enhancement strategies, and identifying areas in need of more detailed investigations. Overall, this review shows several promising advances and continued progress toward a more complete understanding of how macromolecule and nanoparticle design and delivery strategy characteristics can be leveraged to improve the treatment of brain diseases.

Nanoparticle‐based therapeutic formulations are being increasingly explored for the treatment of various ailments. Despite numerous advances, the success of nanoparticle‐based technologies in treating brain diseases has been limited. Translational hurdles of nanoparticle therapies are attributed primarily to their limited ability to cross the blood–brain barrier (BBB), which is one of the body's most exclusive barriers. Several efforts have been focused on developing affinity‐based agents and using them to increase nanoparticle accumulation at the brain endothelium. Very little is known about the role of fundamental physical parameters of nanoparticles such as size, shape, and flexibility in determining their interactions with and penetration across the BBB. Using a three‐dimensional human BBB microfluidic model (μHuB), we investigate the impact of these physical parameters on nanoparticle penetration across the BBB. To gain insights into the dependence of transport on nanoparticle properties, two separate parameters were measured: the number of nanoparticles that fully cross the BBB and the number that remain associated with the endothelium. Association of nanoparticles with the brain endothelium was substantially impacted by their physical characteristics. Hard particles associate more with the endothelium compared to soft particles, as do small particles compared to large particles, and spherical particles compared to rod‐shaped particles. Transport across the BBB also exhibited a dependence on nanoparticle properties. A nonmonotonic dependence on size was observed, where 200 nm particles exhibited higher BBB transport compared to 100 and 500 nm spheres. Rod‐shaped particles exhibited higher BBB transport when normalized by endothelial association and soft particles exhibited comparable transport to hard particles when normalized by endothelial association. Tuning nanoparticles' physical parameters could potentially enhance their ability to cross the BBB for therapeutic applications.